EU Development Policies

Between Norms and Geopolitics

Sarah L. Beringer, Sylvia Maier, Markus Thiel, Sarah L. Beringer, Sylvia Maier, Markus Thiel

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9783030013066
• eBook ISBN: 9783030013073
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: European Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

"An excellent collection of essays that illustrate how EU member states' wish to implement normatively inspired policies is confronted with the geopolitical realities of today's world. The authors succeed in presenting an even-handed account of the way in which the tensions between norms and geopolitics play out, as well as of the responses given by EU policy makers."
—Wil Hout, International Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University, the Netherlands

The European Union (EU), while collectively constituting the world's largest development provider, has come under internal and external pressures over the past decade. This book argues that the EU's development policies are situated between the bloc's normative ideals and the global geopolitical realities in which it is embedded. In order to investigate these tensions, it asks how far the 'normative power' Europe concept exists in EU development policies, and how far it is recognizable in the EU's focus on human rights, the rule of law, and sustainability. In light of the tension in EU development policies between those ideals and the necessity to project neoliberal and geopolitical interests, how do receiving countries perceive the EU's development efforts? This volume, complete with contributions from academics from a wide range of disciplines based all around the globe, provides answers to these essential questions.

© The Author(s) 2019

Sarah L. Beringer, Sylvia Maier and Markus Thiel (eds.)EU Development PoliciesInternational Political Economy Serieshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01307-3_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction

Sarah L. Beringer¹ , Sylvia Maier² and Markus Thiel³

(1)

German Historical Institute, Washington, DC, USA

(2)

Center for Global Affairs, New York University, New York, NY, USA

(3)

Steven J. Green School of International and Public Affairs, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

Sarah L. Beringer (Corresponding author)

Email: [email protected]

Sylvia Maier

Email: [email protected]

Markus Thiel

Email: [email protected]

End Abstract

The European Union (EU) is living through the most critical period of its existence. The BREXIT vote in the United Kingdom to leave the EU, internal divisions over immigration and national security, the strengthening of populist movements, and the lingering Euro-crisis have inevitably compelled the Union to prioritize an inward-looking agenda. This makes it harder for the bloc to solidify its “actorness” (Niemann and Bretherton 2013) and to exert international influence, as—for instance—the stalemate in transatlantic trade negotiations and disagreements in transatlantic relations more generally have shown. But the EU cannot afford to lose sight of the rest of the world, as an isolationist neglect of the states and regions beyond its borders would contribute to more instability. This is particularly evident given the aspirations of regional hegemons, such as China, Russia, Brazil, and Iran, and their alternative, geostrategic visions of development, the emergence of new forms of (trans-)regional cooperation, the Union’s own complex colonial history and links with Africa, the Middle East, and Eurasia, as well as—ultimately—its self-perception as an enlightened normative model for peaceful coexistence and cooperation. Hence, a diminished concern for the Global South and development partnerships would further discredit the EU.

In light of these normative (i.e. value-based) as well as geopolitical (i.e. power-projecting) imperatives, the need for a continual reevaluation of EU development policies , their objectives and impacts, is obvious. Therefore, this volume brings together academics from a variety of disciplines (Political Science, International Relations, Sociology, and Economics) to examine whether the reality of EU development policies corresponds to the Union’s declared commitments to human rights, the rule of law, and environmental and social sustainability, among others—or if, and if so, to what degree, they are being subordinated to global geopolitical imperatives. It further analyzes the EU’s disbursement of Official Development Assistance (ODA) in the context of competing development models in a changing international system, as suggested above.

Ultimately, this volume asserts that the EU’s development policies are situated between the bloc’s normative ideals and the global geopolitical realities in which it is embedded. It characterizes and probes those tensions and provides a spectrum of policy approaches and representative regional and thematic case studies. In the following pages, we set the stage for these explorations by detailing the theoretical framework and the two major questions that guide our analysis, providing background information on EU development policy, and previewing the chapter contents.

The EU’s Normative and Geopolitical Challenges

The period from 2015 to 2020 carries a special significance for global development efforts. In 2015, the United Nations formulated its ambitious 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, also known as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the EU celebrated its official “European Year of Development,” and continued to lead the world in ODA disbursements. On the other hand, in June 2016, the UK, among the top three contributors to EU ODA, decided in a referendum to withdraw from the EU. While the contours of this withdrawal will be subject to ongoing negotiations, it will likely entail a future reorganization of ODA regional and sectoral priorities, with ensuing consequences for many former British colonies. Similarly, in the United States, the election of Donald Trump to the presidency has caused a significant revision of its traditional international engagement, with Trump threatening cuts in US ODA for global public health and women’s reproductive rights initiatives via the so-called Global Gag Rule as well as for countries that voted against his decision to recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel in the UN General Assembly. While this will challenge EU-US development cooperation, it also provides an opportunity for the EU to become a more prominent global actor in its own right. Additionally, crucial changes are taking place within the EU’s ODA framework that will reflect its political positioning and offer significant opportunities for asserting its leadership in international development: most important, the 2016 revision of the European Consensus on Development , ongoing reviews of the EU’s External Financing Instruments and the expiration of the existing Cotonou Agreement, and subsequent efforts to reorganize cooperation between the EU and the 78 Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries after 2020. Last but not least, the significant increase in refugee and migration streams, terror attacks, and the emergence of populist movements in response to rising income inequalities have led to a reconsideration of policy priorities in which development assistance is often viewed as a threat to domestic needs, or more benevolently, as a strategic means to enable would-be-migrants to remain at home.

All these events contain normative as well as geopolitical considerations that are reflected in EU development policies , for example, in the transition from traditional aid to free-market oriented European Partnership Agreements. Despite these challenges, the EU remains a major actor on the world stage that is viewed as a “normative power” (Manners 2002; Whitmann 2011) advocating value-based policies in a number of global policy areas.¹ Following this approach, the EU emphasizes good governance and human rights in its internal and external policies. Given its colonial history and the fact that the bloc is collectively the world’s largest donor of ODA with over 50 percent of global ODA disbursement, it is important to investigate how the EU and its member states promote norms within development policies internationally—not least as a number of disputes over those policies have emerged in bilateral relations in recent years, and the EU’s internal and external crisis mode has pushed it to consider geopolitical aspects more strongly. It is against this backdrop that we evaluate the EU’s development cooperation with nations, regions, and international organizations around the globe.

Our global, interdisciplinary approach facilitates an analysis of how the EU formulates and integrates both normative and geopolitical considerations in its development policy—and how these are received—while situating EU policies within the global development framework. The EU recognizes (European Parliament Briefing 2013) that its own development policies should fall in line with the 17 priorities of the SDGs as it has been a significant contributor to the development and implementation of those objectives. But it also faces contrasting development models promoted by new international development actors such as China or Russia that lack the Union’s conditionality principle and insistence on the protection of human rights and the rule of law. The willingness of those new players to offer development cooperation with no normative strings attached makes them increasingly attractive partners for countries in the Global South. These value differences, coupled with countries’ residual sensitivities to their colonial experiences with European states, make it harder for the bloc to realize its development policy objectives. Taking these circumstances into consideration, we will analyze EU development policies’ fields of action and core targets as well as examine how they are perceived by EU development partner countries, as contributions now aim to redefine the originator-recipient linkage, emphasizing instead the reciprocal nature of the relationship.

Two Key Questions Regarding EU Development Policies

This volume is guided by two key questions on which the contributing authors will elaborate, and which we preview in more detail below:

1. 1.
   In how far does the “Normative Power Europe” concept exist in EU development policies, recognizable in a focus on human rights, the rule of law, and sustainability—or can we identify an increasingly neo-liberal approach in which EU development policies serve a geopolitical self-interest?
2. 2.
   In light of this tension in EU development policies, and the emergence of alternative approaches to international development policy, how do receiving countries perceive and react to the EU’s efforts in this field?

The first question addresses the central concern of this book: to what extent are EU-propagated norms such as human rights, the rule of law, and democracy recognizable in EU development policies, given global geopolitical and geo-economic constraints? The starting point for our analysis is the widely discussed “Normative Power Europe” approach developed by Ian Manners (2002) that led to an intense debate and reevaluation in recent years, including the conceptualization of a “neo-normative turn in theorizing the EU’s international presence” (Whitmann 2013). Whitmann (2013) and others argue that the EU is indeed characterized by an emphasis on values such as peace, liberty, solidarity, and above all, human rights and democracy. Soft norms such as sustainable development, anti-discrimination, as well as good governance are part of this larger ca...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Energy, Climate Change and EU Development Policy
• 3. Theorizing the EU’s International Promotion of LGBTI Rights Policies in the Global South
• 4. The Biodiversity for Life (B4L) Flagship Initiative: The EU, Africa, and Biodiversity Conservation
• 5. European Involvement in China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: Geopolitical Pragmatism or Normative Engagement?
• 6. Sino-Indian Relations and EU Development Policies in Post-Conflict Nepal
• 7. New Directions in EU-Africa Development Initiatives
• 8. The EU, CARIFORUM, and CELAC: A New Development Alliance?
• 9. The Peru-EU Free Trade Agreement: Obstacle or Opportunity for Peru’s Sustainable Development?
• 10. Spain’s Role in the EU’s Development Cooperation Agreement with Cuba
• 11. Conclusion
• Back Matter